This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

19661 

Vol. 72, No. 75 

Thursday, April 19, 2007 

1Available in the docket. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27160; Amendment 

No. 1–56] 

RIN 2120–AI97 

Changes to the Definition of Certain 

Light-Sport Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects an 

unintended consequence created when 

we adopted the original Light-Sport 

Aircraft (LSA) Rule; we did not have 

sufficient information at that time to 

foresee this difficulty. This action 

amends the definition of an LSA in two 

areas. The changes will (1) permit 

development of lighter-than-air (LTA) 

LSA, and (2) allow retractable landing 

gear for LSA intended for operation on 

water. The LTA change will result in a 

common land-based LSA maximum 

takeoff weight limit and allow the LTA 

LSA industry to design and build safe, 

functional LTA aircraft. Allowing 

retractable landing gear for LSA 

intended for operation on water 

recognizes the realities of the operation 

of these LSA and will also enhance the 

growth of that industry. 

DATES: Effective June 4, 2007. 

Comments for inclusion in the Rules 

Docket must be received on or before 

May 21, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Werth, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Small Airplane Directorate, 

ACE–114, 901 Locust, Room 301, 

Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone 816– 

329–4147; fax: 816–329–4090; e-mail: 

larry.werth@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this direct final 

rule and how we will handle your 

comments. Included in this discussion 

is related information about the docket. 

We also discuss how you can get a copy 

of this direct final rule and any related 

rulemaking documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701. 

Under that section, the FAA is charged 

with prescribing regulations for 

practices, methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority 

because it establishes minimum 

standards required in the interest of 

safety for the design of aircraft. 

Background 

On July 27, 2004, the FAA issued the 

‘‘Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for 

the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft’’ 

final rule (69 FR 44772) (hereon referred 

to as The LSA/Sport Pilot Rule). That 

rule established a definition for the term 

‘‘Light-Sport Aircraft’’ (LSA). Since we 

adopted that rule, the FAA has been 

working with the LSA industry in 

evaluating the overall LSA program. The 

past two years have seen remarkable 

growth in the overall LSA program. 

Over 600 new factory-built airplanes, 

powered parachutes, and weight-shift 

control aircraft have received 

airworthiness certificates. The 

exceptions to this rapid growth are 

lighter-than-air (LTA) LSA and LSA 

intended for operation on water. 

In the first area, the FAA has 

determined the current LTA LSA 

maximum takeoff weight (MTW) of 660 

pounds (300 kilograms) precludes the 

desired effect of industry design and 

development of safe LTA LSA. In the 

second area, the FAA has determined 

the physical differences between LSA 

intended for operation on water 

(amphibious LSA) and land-based LSA 

justify allowing retractable landing gear 

for amphibious LSA. We discuss these 

determinations in the following 

paragraphs. 

Lighter-Than-Air Light-Sport Aircraft 

The LSA/Sport Pilot Rule, which 

became effective September 1, 2004, 

established an LTA LSA MTW of 660 

pounds (300 kilograms). When the FAA 

originally considered LTA LSA, we 

determined that airships suitable for 

sport pilots do not need to meet all the 

requirements established in FAA–P– 

8110–2, ‘‘Airship Design Criteria’’.1 We 

based the criteria on airship designs that 

conventionally use low molecular 

weight lifting gases rather than hot air. 

We based the weight limit in the final 

rule on a review of type-certificated free 

balloons not using hot air as a captive 

lifting gas. Since publication of the final 

rule, the FAA has received comments 

from the LTA aircraft community 

requesting the addition of aircraft using 

hot air as a lifting gas. 

One commenter recommended the 

660 pounds MTW in the current rule be 

redefined as a ‘‘Design Useful Load.’’ 

The commenter reasons that, for 

designers of LTA aircraft, this definition 

would be a rational quantitative 

objective consistent with standards for 

sport pilot/light-sport aircraft. The 

commenter also said the definition 

would make the envelope volume/size 

differences between hot-air and low 

molecular weight lifting gas LSA 

irrelevant. The commenter provided 

information that counters the logic used 

to define weights for LTA aircraft. 

Another commenter provided a table 

comparing envelope volume and 

maximum gross weight of 26 typecertificated hot air balloons designed for 

two-place use. The comparison table 

shows an average envelope volume of 

58,615 cubic feet (ranging from 42,000 

to 65,000 cubic feet), and an average 

maximum gross weight of 1,170 pounds 

(ranging from 870 to 1,433 pounds). 

A commenter requested that the 660- 

pound design useful load be the LTA 

aircraft design weight criteria. The 

commenter also asked that existing twoplace type-certificated hot air balloons 

be permitted to have maximum gross 

weights of at least 1,100 pounds. The 

commenter believes economics would 

naturally discourage a ‘‘larger’’ size 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
19662 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2See Docket Management System Docket Number 

FAA–2005–23030. Available at dms.dot.gov. 

airship with a useful load of 660 

pounds. 

We have reconsidered our decision to 

distinguish hot-air balloons and hot-air 

based airships from LSA in light of the 

facts and data presented by the lightsport community. We believe the 

characteristics and operation of these 

aircraft are within the standards for 

sport pilot/light-sport aircraft. Further, 

we erred in our determination of 

maximum weight for LTA aircraft as 

described in the preamble for the final 

rule. Based on the information 

presented by the LTA aircraft 

community, we have determined that 

the 1,320-pound MTW limit for LSA is 

applicable to LTA aircraft. This weight 

includes the structure, uninflated 

envelope, engine, burner system, fuel, 

installed equipment and systems, and 

two occupants. This increased weight 

limit permits LTA aircraft designers to 

provide better integrity for the structure 

that carries the sport pilot and 

passenger. 

We do not agree with the 

recommendation to establish a 

definition for ‘‘design useful load’’ as 

the parameter for LTA aircraft weight. 

As stated in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) dated February 5, 

2002 (67 FR 5376), and in the preamble 

for the final rule dated July 27, 2004 (69 

FR 44794), the criteria in the LSA 

definition are intended to be objective 

characteristics that are easily measured. 

Design useful load would not be easily 

verified as a limiting measure. 

Under the provisions of the Sport 

Pilot and Light-Sport Aircraft rule and 

revised Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A–119, ‘‘Federal 

Participation in the Development and 

Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards 

and in Conformity Assessment 

Activities,’’ dated February 10, 1998, 

industry and the FAA have been 

working with ASTM International 

(originally formed as the American 

Society for Testing and Materials) to 

develop consensus standards for LSA. 

These consensus standards satisfy the 

FAA’s goal for airworthiness 

certification and establish a verifiable 

minimum safety level for LSA. In 

addition, use of the consensus standard 

process assures government and 

industry discussion and agreement on 

appropriate standards for the required 

level of safety. 

We have reviewed the particular 

consensus standards developed for LTA 

LSA and note that these standards 

contain provisions for airships and 

balloons based on hot air or low 

molecular weight gas. 

Retractable Landing Gear for LSA 

Intended for Operation on Water 

When we drafted the original 

proposal for LSA appropriate for sport 

pilots, we were concerned that LSA be 

simple in design and operation. For 

aircraft design, low performance within 

the constraints of light weight and 

structural integrity were important. For 

aircraft operation, simple mechanical 

systems within the constraint of sport 

pilot training requirements were 

important. As noted in the preamble to 

the rule, from an operations perspective, 

14 CFR, part 61, § 61.31(e) provides a 

statement of the aircraft features that the 

FAA considers in assuring adequate 

training for a pilot to operate complex 

aircraft. From the aircraft operations 

perspective, § 61.31(e) does not dictate 

that retractable landing gear makes a 

seaplane complex. 

We intended to allow for retractable 

landing gear for amphibious aircraft. We 

attempted to differentiate between 

retractable and repositionable landing 

gear, but that distinction has caused 

problems when implementing the rule. 

The term ‘‘repositionable landing gear’’

was defined in the preamble to the LSA/ 

Sport Pilot Rule as ‘‘* * * wheeled 

landing gear that allows an aircraft 

designed for operation on water to 

takeoff and land from a hard surface and 

which may be retracted on the ground 

to permit takeoff and landing on water. 

Repositionable landing gear remains 

fixed in its position from takeoff 

through landing.’’ This definition did 

not fully recognize or account for the 

realities of operation of amphibious 

LSA. From the aircraft design 

perspective, we were concerned that 

malfunction or misuse of retractable 

landing gear on amphibious aircraft not 

impose a hazard to the aircraft 

occupants. 

During the original rulemaking, we 

were willing to accept the prospect that 

aircraft structure designed for water 

loads for takeoff or landing would 

provide occupant protection in the 

event of a wheels up landing on the 

ground. Since the original rulemaking, 

the FAA has received data 2 from the 

industry showing that a wheels-down 

water landing accident sometimes 

results in minor injuries, but typically 

results in no injuries. The biggest 

challenge is escaping from the aircraft 

when a wheels-down landing accident 

results in the aircraft submerging in 

water. The simple two-place design 

configuration of a LSA facilitates easy 

exit from the aircraft should such an 

accident occur. 

Considering the relatively safe record 

of retractable landing gear on 

amphibious LSA and the physical 

differences between amphibious and 

land-based LSA, we believe use of 

retractable landing gear is appropriate 

for amphibious LSA. Our expectations 

for simple, mechanically operated 

retractable landing gear for sailplanes 

align with our expectations for 

operation of amphibious aircraft. 

(Sailplane fuselages are typically 

designed for landing loads similar to 

amphibious aircraft structural design 

criteria). 

Finally, with the current § 1.1 LSA 

definition, most of the existing fleet of 

amphibious single- and two-seat 

ultralight-like aircraft in the LSA fleet 

cannot be issued an airworthiness 

certificate under § 21.191(i)(1). These 

aircraft do not meet the current 

definition of a LSA since most are 

equipped with retractable landing gear 

and not ‘‘repositionable’’ landing gear. 

Unless the LSA definition is changed to 

allow retractable landing gear for 

amphibious LSA before January 31, 

2008, these aircraft will be 

unnecessarily excluded from this 

category of aircraft. 

Czech Air Works (CZAW) petitioned 

the FAA for an exemption to allow 

retractable landing gear on its Mermaid 

amphibious airplane. As part of its 

request, CZAW provided information 

concerning the design and operation of 

amphibious LSA. The petition can be 

found in Docket No. FAA–2005–23030. 

The FAA received approximately 450 

comments from 260 commenters. 

Comments on the petition highlighted 

the overall benefits for an airplane to be 

capable of land and water landings. 

These comments also addressed 

structural design integrity of 

amphibious aircraft that provide added 

protection for aircraft occupants in the 

event of landing with the landing gear 

in the wrong position (gear up or down). 

One commenter pointed out that, 

without an exemption, manufacturers 

might sell the aircraft equipped with 

‘‘beaching gear’’ (for use only when 

taxiing to land from water, and vice 

versa, using a ramp) instead of landing 

gear. This commenter suggested that 

pilots may be tempted to use the 

beaching gear as landing gear, which 

would compromise safety. 

Several commenters objected to the 

petition for exemption. One commenter 

said changing gear position would 

increase risk to occupants of an 

amphibious LSA. Three commenters 

said that increasing complexity of LSA 

would increase risk. Four commenters 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 19663 

said the Mermaid aircraft would be 

seriously damaged if the pilot landed on 

water with the gear down. One 

commenter recommended allowing only 

one change of gear position each flight. 

In granting the petition for exemption 

to allow retractable landing gear for 

amphibious LSA, the primary concern 

was to determine if the Mermaid aircraft 

is as safe as any other aircraft with LSA 

airworthiness certification. We reviewed 

the information provided by CZAW and 

the commenters to the petition for 

exemption. The FAA found the 

structural integrity of the Mermaid 

aircraft is enhanced by its ‘‘flying boat’’

design. This design offers increased 

protection for the occupants when 

landing with improperly positioned 

landing gear. We also found the simple 

method of actuating and monitoring the 

position of the landing gear is consistent 

with the design objectives for LSA. 

We agree with the commenters who 

implied the safety of amphibious 

aircraft is better served by allowing for 

retractable rather than repositionable 

landing gear because of the manner in 

which amphibious aircraft are operated. 

We considered the comment that pilots 

might be tempted to use ‘‘beaching 

gear’’ (if equipped) as landing gear to be 

a persuasive argument. Using ‘‘beaching 

gear’’ as landing gear would 

compromise safety because it is not 

designed for landing impact loads. 

Several commenters were concerned 

that retractable landing gear would add 

to the complexity of amphibious LSA. 

Commenters were divided on the need 

for landing gear position indicators for 

amphibious LSA. We find that a directaction manual lever to mechanically 

operate the landing gear or a simple 

mechanical system is appropriate for 

amphibious LSA. Currently, sailplanes 

certificated as LSA are allowed to use a 

direct-action manual lever to 

mechanically operate the landing gear. 

We have determined that this revision 

to the definition of a LSA recognizes the 

operational requirements of amphibious 

LSA and is consistent with the stated 

design and safety objectives. 

The Direct Final Rule Process 

The FAA anticipates that this 

regulation will not result in adverse or 

negative comment and, therefore, is 

issuing it as a direct final rule. The two 

changes in the definition of LSA will be 

beneficial to and supported by the LSA 

industry. Increasing the LTA MTW will 

result in a common LSA limitation and 

eliminate the current unnecessary 

restrictions. Allowing retractable 

landing gear for amphibious LSA will be 

beneficial to that portion of the LSA 

industry and will enhance the 

development of safe amphibious LSA. 

Unless we receive a written adverse or 

negative comment, or a written notice of 

intent to submit an adverse or negative 

comment within the comment period, 

the regulation will become effective on 

the date specified above. After the close 

of the comment period, the FAA will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register that indicates we received no 

adverse or negative comments and 

confirms the date the final rule will 

become effective. If the FAA receives, 

within the comment period, an adverse 

or negative comment, or written notice 

of intent to submit such a comment, we 

will publish a document withdrawing 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register, and we may publish a notice 

of proposed rulemaking with a new 

comment period. 

In evaluating any comments received, 

the FAA will consider only comments 

supported by valid and reasonable data. 

Adverse comments that dispute 

previously established and accepted 

FAA determinations or decisions will 

not be considered. Any written notice of 

intent to submit late comments must 

contain a reasonable estimate of when 

that comment will be submitted. We 

will not delay implementing these 

changes because comments were not 

submitted on time. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the FAA to 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. We have 

determined that there are no current or 

new requirements for information 

collection associated with these 

amendments. 

International Compatibility 

The FAA has determined that there 

are no International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices that 

correspond to this regulation. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Agreements Act requires agencies to 

consider international standards and, 

where appropriate, that they be the basis 

of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows. 

We were too restrictive in two areas 

of the original LSA definition. With this 

rulemaking action, we are removing a 

restriction by allowing the LSA to use 

retractable landing gear when the 

aircraft is intended for operation on 

water. This rule will also create a 

common land-based LSA MTW limit, 

which will allow the LTA LSA industry 

to design and build safe, functional LTA 

aircraft. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
19664 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

This final rule will not impose any 

costs on small entities. We were overly 

restrictive in our original rule. We are 

removing restrictions to allow 

retractable landing gear for LSA 

intended for operation on water and are 

creating a common land-based LSA 

MTW limit, which will allow the LTA 

LSA industry to design and build safe, 

functional LTA aircraft. Therefore, as 

the FAA Administrator, I certify that 

this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

has determined that it will have a cost 

relieving impact on domestic and 

international entities and thus has a 

neutral trade impact. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, we 

determined that this final rule does not 

have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

18, 2001). We have determined that it is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Additional Information 

Commenting on This Direct Final Rule 

You may send comments identified 

by Docket Number FAA–2007–27160 

using any of the following methods: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policy Web page at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number, notice 

number, or amendment number of this 

rulemaking. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1 

Air transportation. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends part 1 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND 

ABBREVIATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

■ 2. Amend the definition of ‘‘lightsport aircraft’’ in § 1.1 by removing 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 19665 

paragraph (1)(i), redesignating (1)(ii) and 

(1)(iii) as (1)(i) and (1)(ii), respectively, 

and revising paragraph (12) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.1 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

Light-sport aircraft * * * 

* * * * * 

(12) Fixed or retractable landing gear, 

or a hull, for an aircraft intended for 

operation on water. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9, 

2007. 

Marion C. Blakey, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–7453 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Parts 510 and 522 

Implantation or Injectable Dosage 

Form New Animal Drugs; Withdrawal 

of Approval of NADAs; Estradiol 

Benzoate 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is amending the 

animal drug regulations that reflect 

approval of two new animal drug 

applications (NADAs) for a suspension 

implant of estradiol benzoate 

microspheres used in steers and heifers 

fed in confinement for slaughter for 

increased rate of weight gain and 

improved feed efficiency, and in 

suckling beef calves for increased rate of 

weight gain. In a notice published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, FDA has withdrawn approval 

of the NADAs. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 19, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela K. Esposito, Center for 

Veterinary Medicine (HFV–212), Food 

and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish 

Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–

9067; e-mail: 

pamela.esposito@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PR 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1716 Heath 

Pkwy., Fort Collins, CO 80524, has 

requested that FDA withdraw approval 

of NADA 141–040 for DURALEASE 

(estradiol benzoate), a suspension 

implant of estradiol benzoate 

microspheres used in steers and heifers 

fed in confinement for slaughter for 

increased rate of weight gain and 

improved feed efficiency and NADA 

141–041 for CELERIN-C (estradiol 

benzoate), a similar product used in 

suckling beef calves for increased rate of 

weight gain. This action is requested 

because the products are no longer 

manufactured or marketed. 

In a notice published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register, FDA 

gave notice that approval of NADA 141–

040 and NADA 141–041 and all 

supplements and amendments thereto, 

were withdrawn, as of September 29, 

2006. 

Following the withdrawal of approval 

of these NADAs, PR Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc., is no longer a sponsor of an 

approved application. Therefore, 21 

CFR 510.600(c) is amended to remove 

entries for this firm. As provided in the 

regulatory text of this document, the 

animal drug regulations are amended to 

reflect the withdrawal of approval. 

This rule does not meet the definition 

of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because 

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’

Therefore, it is not subject to the 

congressional review requirements in 5 

U.S.C. 801–808. 

List of Subjects 

21 CFR Part 510 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

21 CFR Part 522 

Animal drugs. 

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to 

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 

CFR parts 510 and 522 are amended as 

follows: 

PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 510 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 

353, 360b, 371, 379e. 

§ 510.600 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 510.600, in the table in 

paragraph (c)(1), remove the entry for 

‘‘PR Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’’; and in the 

table in paragraph (c)(2) remove the 

entry for ‘‘067210’’. 

PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR 

INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW 

ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 522 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 

§ 522.841 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove § 522.841. 

Dated: April 9, 2007. 

Bernadette Dunham, 

Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine. 

[FR Doc. E7–7458 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Parts 510 and 558 

New Animal Drugs For Use in Animal 

Feed; Withdrawal of Approval of 

NADAs; Pyrantel; Tylosin; Tylosin and 

Sulfamethazine 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is withdrawing 

approval of three new animal drug 

applications (NADAs) for intermediate 

premixes used to manufacture Type C 

medicated feeds. In a notice published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, FDA is withdrawing approval 

of the NADAs. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 30, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela K. Esposito, Center for 

Veterinary Medicine (HFV–212), Food 

and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish 

Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–

9067, e-mail: 

pamela.esposito@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Custom 

Feed Services Corp., 2100 N. 13th St., 

Norfolk, NE 68701, has requested that 

FDA withdraw approval of NADA 121–

200 for Tylosin 10 Premix (tylosin), 

NADA 129–159 for TYLAN 40 Sulfa-G 

(tylosin and sulfamethazine), and 

NADA 137–484 for Swine Guard-BN 

(pyrantel). All are intermediate 

premixes used to manufacture Type C 

medicated feeds. This action is 

requested because the products are no 

longer manufactured or marketed. 

In a final rule published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register, FDA 

gives notice that approval of NADA 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES